Trussssst in me my friend, that's not the Greatest way to try to make a point: spitting out derogatory accusations without a shred of supporting argument. You're not a spitting cobra, are you? So far you don't seem to have a very strong grasp on the subject. Flesh out your position. It's rather limp.

__________________
He couldn't win from day 1. My predictions are always accurate.
--- inevitab1e (the baked potato)
Some of you are thinking that you won't fight. Others, that you can't fight. They all say that, until they're out there....
--- Proximo, Gladiator
"...and I have an angry mob, that will roast and eat your 'men of quality' in the ashes of the Senate House" --- Marc Antony, HBO's ROME

^^
He's right you know
I give very little thought to philosophies, I have no reason to believe that primates like us, with senses and adaptions useful in our immediate environment, have any real hope of postulating ultimate reality, even if there were such a thing
For me the mountain is there, that is enough
But even I can see that if you want to influence anyone's beliefs,here anyway, you won't get far assuming that you need teach them to count before they are able to do the math.

__________________
Any day above ground is a good day.
"Hinduism is my favorite religion because it has no supernatural gods". Inevitab1e

"You don't understand what the word "climate" means. It's got nothing to do with the sun you dingdong." Inevitab1e
__________________

Hold it Greatest. Aren't you forgetting that he paid for those goods and services? He isn't "living free". Or are you assuming that because your bills are paid by your parents or the state (through welfare programs) that everybody else out there is "living free" unless they personally produce their own goods and perform their own services? Hot damn I wish I was "living free", but I'm trading my work for money and then trading that for someone else's work in a free enterprise system that sets prices commensurate with the value of the service provided and the work performed. If you want to restructure our economy so that it runs by the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", then that's what would accurately be called "living free" for those who need more than they produce, eh?

Taking some people's earned wealth and giving it to someone else is oppressive, yes. See the above clarification of "free living".

The fact that people vote for something is absolutely useless in determining the legitimacy of what they vote for. A majority of Americans in the South thru the 1950s voted for oppressive Jim Crow laws because they weren't black. Germany voted for Hitler in the 1930s because a majority weren't Jewish, and his regime oppressed everyone. Stop assuming that the majority can and accurately does make legitimate choices that shun oppression. Jesus Christ what do you think went on in Revolutionary Russia or Chairman Mao's China? The Communists told the peons that they had the right to appropriate the 1%'s wealth in the name of equality and justice. Look at the results. Get out of the cave you're living in and get an education ffs.

That was all mostly correct and historically accurate.
Marxism fails because it doesn't take human nature into account and is all based upon erroneous assumptions.
The same is true for many nation states that are becoming propositional vs natural and organic and reality-based.
Those will also fail and for many of these same reasons as well.

You're ignoring the necessity of capital investment for the success of any modern economy. If you want to live in an economy that resembles a collection of peasants producing everything with the sweat and toil of their own hands, then have at it. Shades of Pol Pot...

Either the confusions you are generating are a result of English being a second language for you, in which case the confusions you generate with your comparisons are understandable and unfortunate, or your thinking is confused prior to and apart from the language you're using. Hermit living isn't relevant to the operations of a modern economy, and neither are philosophical allegories such as Plato's Cave. (btw, Plato believed that the best government was the benevolent dictatorship of enlightened philosopher kings. So much for his guidance towards 'democracy'.)

If someone pays for the goods and services they receive, then they are circulating wealth are they not? The rich 'circulate' quite a bit of money. The rest is invested in economic ventures that produce goods and services of value, making more money for the owners (capital) and money for those employed (wages). Eliminate capital by handing every bit of profit to the workers directly and you are headed towards an economy that looks like the USSR. Is that what you want? They tried to replace the roles of capital and profit in driving an economy with the creation of a society filled with the New Soviet Man:

an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single (Soviet) people. ...
Among the major traits of a new Soviet man was selfless collectivism. The selfless new man was willing to sacrifice his life for good causes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

Problem was that this "New Man" did not materialize, even after seventy years of indoctrination, education, soviet equality, state compulsion, and outright threats of the worst kind. He doesn't exist and he won't be created. Do you want to be the New Man who supports the weak and the unable with the nobility of your ceaseless anonymous labors without enjoying the benefits of capitalist profit? Is the satisfaction knowing that you are contributing to the collective good reward enough for a lifetime spent working for other people's benefit? Isn't that all a good, decent, righteous individual should require?

The answer is NO. A collective does not enjoy an apple, an individual enjoys an apple. A collective does not live a life, an individual lives their life. Outside of religious saints, few people want to live the life of a single bee in a collective hive, serving a society (or a God) that is greater than its own insignificant life. Trying to run an economy and a society on romantic notions (conjured up by intellectuals who frankly lived lives that more closely resembled the very Bourgeois that they abhorred than the lives of the workers they romanticized) that translate into slavery and martyrdom for the everyday worker is a fail!

You're simply wrong. The way any economy works is that people either earn what they receive by producing goods and services or they provide capital necessary for the creation of economic development. Spending alone does not produce anything but inflation. Work and the capital that puts people to work is what produces value and wealth. Removing capital from an economy and handing it over to those who do not perform services or produce goods causes economic collapse, it doesn't prevent it.

What does the name Napoleon Bonaparte His Imperial and Royal Majesty
Emperor of the French
King of Italy
First Consul of the French Republic
President of the Italian Republic
Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine
Co-Prince of Andorra
Mediator of the Swiss Confederation

mean to you?
(hint: the French Revolution succeeded in annihilating the monarchy and nobility (and most other persons of wealth), only to slide into the Reign Of Terror and thence into Napoleon's dictatorship, massive wars with their resulting devastations, etc. In much the same way, know-nothings in Russia motivated by half baked intellectuals like yourself fueled the Russian Revolution...which created Stalin and seventy plus years of misery labeled as 'equality'.)

UK Atheist is right. You're a know-nothing who thinks he knows what he's talking about. It's a combination that leads to error after error. If you had to bear the consequences of your errors alone that would be justice, but when millions of know-nothings start crowing for political changes that are destructive it leads to tragic errors that we all have to suffer through.